Forum: Author Hangout

Things authors do that bother you...

Please post something authors get wrong. Things that bug you and/or throw you out of the story.

Something you wish more authors realized.

I'll go first...

======================

10 seconds isn't short.

I read a story the other day, a fairly mainstream fantasy, and they did something that bugs me. It's something that I see often in stories.

"Players are forced to immediately throw the ball because it's enchanted to shock anyone that holds it for longer than TEN SECONDS!" (I'm paraphrasing here)

The author wants to show that players don't have time to pick out a target to throw the ball to. They need to immediately throw it. I'm sure the author and proofreaders thought "A second is fast, so 10 seconds would force them to throw right away!"

The actual timer the author is looking for is one second. Perhaps even less than a second.

"He charged into the room, paused in the doorway for a few seconds, then attacked!" That's not a surprise attack. A dangerous opponent had plenty of time to look at the door and see who is there, draw a weapon, and attack first.

"I ran to the other side of the room, and was out the door in less than ten seconds!" That's a slow walk across even a huge room. Unless your in a warehouse running definitely wasn't involved.

- characters constantly "chuckling"
- filtering out profanities in a sex story is bad enough (seriously?) but then to use a fantasy word constantly for every character who don't even know each other ("goddongit")
- stupidity for plots sake
- not caring for health issues like ass to pussy sex and/or not implementing or mentioning STD dangers.

Adverb overload. I've recently been rereading a well known and well thought of story here and gritting my teeth because sometimes it seems that every other verb gets a 'very' prepended. Adverbs can be useful but they have more punch if they're used sparingly.

Too many stories of the extremely sensitive and wimpy teenage male who gets the girl. Do teenage males exist with that much drama? Hell when I was young everyone so messed up with hormone changes that testosterone was beyond rampant.

...and let's not even get started on homonym/homophone abuse and misuse. Few things ruin a story quicker for me than some writer who cannot tell the difference between their, there & they're (along with numerous other examples) and doesn't know or care to try & fix it.

The narrator describes the male MC as 'very mature for his young age', but then all I get is a hormonal challenged teenager, drooling over every pair of tits in sight and losing consciousness when he watches two women kissing each other.

I read chapter over chapter dedicated to the star-fated love of the MC and the woman of his dreams and suddenly the author hits the reset button. The MC and his former loveinterst decide the last twenty chapters have been just a joke, brake up for some surprising reason and pick someone new to become the greatest love of their lives.

Some authors explicitly state their stories occur in universes where STDs do not exist. For some readers (and author's I'm sure) those concerns mess up the erotic nature of the story. Not a big deal to me, either way.

As for the extremely sensitive and wimpy teenage male getting the girl, didn't happen for me but all else being equal I appreciate it when I see it in a story.

It's a common literary motif that those who suffer eventually win, it's the whole 'underdog' meme. It's not that they're 'wimpy', it's that they've suffered, refocused their efforts and have rose above their earlier positions.

Put it another way, consider all those 'wimpy nerds' who now own software company worth billions? Being the top of the heap in high school isn't a clear path to success in life, and teenage girls can rarely judge worth in suitors as they lack the necessary experience in dealing with people

However, the key word here is 'wimpy'. You don't want your main character to be a punching bag, instead, they've got to have an under core of steel resolve, and be willing to suffer in order to win the day. Just because someone gets picked on doesn't make anyone 'great'.

IMO, that should only be mentioned if it's part of the story. Alfred Hitchcock once said: "Drama is life without the boring bits." You can't fill a story with a lot of boring bits.

That makes sense, but it's such a major concern for so many, that it's worth at least a single sentence's mention in a story. Otherwise, the story seems to be complete fantasy, rather than representing the 'common man' who often wrestles with these issues and ends up being bitten on the dick by them too.

Letting characters that try to kill the mc go so they can write more drama when said characters come and try to kill the mc again

Does that fit under the previously mentioned 'pansy' objection. There's being betrayed after trusting someone, but then there's doing something that common sense tells you is simply a stupid, stupid move.

Showing mirth or humor in a given situation can help define a character (it demonstrates a tendency to not take oneself overly seriously), but one major problem is just how to achieve it. For those unable to think of clever comebacks, a chuckle is the easiest solution, but is often overly simplistic. But you also have to watch how someone can talk incessantly while laughing at the same time.

I am currently reading "Magician" by QM and every character is chuckling, every time. It feels like every conversation contains at minimum 1 chuckle.

Like every tool in an artist's quiver, each is only valuable when used appropriately. Using any one all the time robs it of it's power, making it's use merely obsessive. The key is picking the right time and place, and then largely underselling it, so it stands on its own rather than the author forcing it on readers.

But I agree, it can and does get overused. I was merely referring to how authors frequently have to struggle with finding ways of utilizing it.

Which means different things to different people. Yes, it can mean spineless, but it also can mean too damned weak to do anything about it. I don't mind a character who is a punching bag, but one that grovels so he won't be used as a punching bag is another thing altogether.

I don't know that I've seen many stories with the cowardly version of the wimp getting the girl. In some he finally gets the girl when he decides to stand up for himself or, more likely, someone else even though he gets thoroughly thrashed in the process.

Personally, I like the physically weak type of MC who uses his wits and friends to overcome situations.

That's part of the 'physical limitations' meme, where the main character is seen as flawed, yet he manages to overcome his inherent flaws to prove himself despite his natural inclinations. Thus the character from "House M.D." qualifies under this particular meme, even though he's simply an ass, his limp notwithstanding.

What bothers me with those situations isn't that a particularly weak character wins the girl, but he wins girl after girl after girl, with not a single one questioning him or turning their backs to him. Even one or two cold shoulders would feel like a splash of refreshing cold water after so much of the same.

Otherwise, the story seems to be complete fantasy, rather than representing the 'common man' who often wrestles with these issues and ends up being bitten on the dick by them too.

I doubt that there are very many people among the 'common man' who actually want to read a story about someone else living the same boring, dreary life that they are living. Fantasy and escapism are 98% of the point of recreational reading.

I doubt that there are very many people among the 'common man' who actually want to read a story about someone else living the same boring, dreary life that they are living. Fantasy and escapism are 98% of the point of recreational reading.

And the other 2% is chuckling and sighing over the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the story.

I am currently reading "Magician" by QM and every character is chuckling, every time. It feels like every conversation contains at minimum 1 chuckle.

I think the better way to express this particular complaint isn't to complain about chucking or laughter.

The real issue in play here is when most of nearly all characters demonstrate the same behavioural patterns and most of the same quirks.

So having a character who is always smirking or smiling about something is ok. But only so long as they're the only ones always doing so. That isn't to say the others can't smirk or smile, just that you better justify why they're doing so, and possibly differentiate on the specific descriptors used(unless character is intending to mimic/imitate on some level).

I doubt that there are very many people among the 'common man' who actually want to read a story about someone else living the same boring, dreary life that they are living. Fantasy and escapism are 98% of the point of recreational reading.

The whole 'common man' approach was never about writing about boring people, instead it's a way of humanizing a story's main characters and giving a way for readers to relate to someone who's ever wish comes true with no effort on his part.

Instead, readers need a reason to care about what happens to a character. If the character isn't particularly pleasant, or his situation doesn't seem 'real' (where many stories with people riding space ships are considered 'realistic portrayals'), then you'll lose many readers.

One thing that bugs me in books -- published books, so most of the proofreading issues have been eliminated,
is when the author thinks he's writing about the real world, but he isn't. I read one romance until a character said [paraphrased] "I thought only we scientists believed in magic."
Gal, you want to bring in magic, I'll read it. You want to bring in physicists believing in magic, I'll bail.

There are two things that writers do that are annoying me right now, because I've recently been encountering them heavily. Both are ways writers get too cute with surprises. I'll post them separately for easier replying, and because the second one is rather long.

First one is a writer who deliberately withholds story codes they KNOW ARE COMING until the moment they arrive in the story. There is a reason sites like this have stories code requirements and story code filters. It's because not everyone likes the same things. You might not like some of my fetishes, and I might not like some of yours. That's fine. But trying to sucker me into reading something I don't like is HIGHLY disrespectful. I am an adult, not some five-year-old who won't eat a mushroom because it looks weird.

There are two things that writers do that are annoying me right now, because I've recently been encountering them heavily. Both are ways writers get too cute with surprises. I'll post them separately for easier replying, and because the second one is rather long.

The second one is when a writer is so devoted to drama and swerves for their own sake, they willfully ignore all previous characterization and force one or more characters to act EXTREMELY out of character just to get that little bit of extra drama.

And when I say extremely, I mean the kind of thing that would have made Vince McMahon tell Vince Russo "NO CHANCE IN HELL!"

I'm not going to name names, but I'll give an example of one that looks like it is about to happen:

Main character is a young teen who is only just recovering from moths of a sever depression after his girlfriend committed suicide while fighting cancer, a fight he didn't know about until her funeral. His family has been supportive, but he has also had his best friend since diapers. His female best friend. She has been his emotional rock. Ferociously loyal, comforts him, supports him, worries about him. And yet, in the most recent chapter, this same person takes the main character the her favorite spot, talks about her feelings for him, looks at him in a way she would know damned well he could only read one way, has sex with him . . . and then dumps him? Knowing everything he's been through the past year?

I'm sorry, but no. It breaks all characterization to have the girl from every chapter before that point to treat him with that level of thoughtless, callus, emotional BRUTALITY. It would destroy all credibility for her character, the story, and the author.

I'm not saying betrayal doesn't happen. I'm not even saying that betrayal is bad for storytelling. Hell, as the earlier reference suggests, I'm an old-school pro wrestling fan. But even THEY knew enough about characterization to know that there were some thing you just don't do without a damned good set-up. There was a good reason why NOBODY ever tried the make Ricky Steamboat turn heel. Because nobody would believe it!

Drama in a story is fun and exciting. But sometimes a writer needs to take a good look at the characters and characterization in front of them and realize that they just shouldn't go there.

First one is a writer who deliberately withholds story codes they KNOW ARE COMING until the moment they arrive in the story.

Of course some writers don't know what's coming up because they're making it up as they go along but I agree with your point. It's one of the reasons I almost never start stories these days until they're complete. By then the author should have an idea what's going on and have coded for it.

Not fully coding a story is definitely one of my peeves. I'm OK if the author says in the synopsis that they are withholding codes (though I won't read the story) but if they just leave off codes that I find objectionable then they get a 1 vote and they land on my exclusion list. The codes aren't only there to let us know what stories we'll be interested in but also the ones that we'll want to avoid.

Most authors tend to write the same or very similar types of stories and they develop habits in the way they present their stories.

I agree that the practice of withholding a story code that you know will be added as a surprise is not appropriate. The readers of authors who use this practice should be aware of the author's habit of adding uncoded content to a story. If you haven't read their stories, then you can always review the codes they assigned to completed stories, and hopefully they added missing codes when they included potentially objectionable material in a story. Of course that assumes the author has multiple stories posted and that you read or attempted to read the stories. If true, then you should have a general idea of the types of content to expect of that author.

A new author or an author you haven't read is a different situation, and there is no way to predict what you will encounter. :( However, a new author is an experienced reader. They should know that including uncoded scenes that may be objectionable is a bad practice based on how they felt when they encountered objectionable content. On the other hand, maybe as a reader, the new author liked having uncoded, objectionable material being included as a surprise.

They should also have read Lazeez guides to good writing practices including the sections addressing proper coding for a story. If they implement inappropriate practices, they deserve to lose their readers. But they should be aware that others don't share their opinion.Unfortunately, new authors will not read the guides or they think they can get away with practices they objected to other writers using. :(

LOL... ANOTHER thing that I find annoying is when the writer has several characters that have the same and/or very similar names. I just reviewed one like that where there was an "Uncle Lee (called Lee) and a niece named Lee. The writer used a lot of dialog that went, "and Lee said" when both character were present. Even taking context into account it could be confusing.

I agree. I'm having that problem with Part 2 of my current story. Part 1 of the story had a Sam Thomas and a Samantha (Sam) Reppa and they have major postions in the story.

I fixed that problem for future stories. I found several lists of first and last names and merged the respective lists. I then deleted duplicates of first names and last names, but missed a few duplicates and need to go through the listing again. I now have a list of about 800 first-last character names. I just have to avoid names where a nickname duplicates another characters name, like Sam/Samantha.

LOL... ANOTHER thing that I find annoying is when the writer has several characters that have the same and/or very similar names. I just reviewed one like that where there was an "Uncle Lee (called Lee) and a niece named Lee. The writer used a lot of dialog that went, "and Lee said" when both character were present. Even taking context into account it could be confusing.

I had one story, with well over 100 characters, where I had some fun with this. Finding another character with the same name, the MC dubs him "Alex 2". I had fun playing around with this (ex: "which Alex is that?"/"Oh, Alex 1").

Even in my newest story, dealing with aliens whose names are so strange they'd never repeat, the humans assign human names to anyone who's name they can't pronounce, and if one happens to act like a previous character, they simply say, "OK, we'll just call you Gary 2 until we finally master your name."

But, at least I make it clear who's saying what, and my editors are very good at telling me when my speakers aren't clearly identified.

Found it on a graphic I stumbled upon one night while perusing various MILF video vignettes.

Smirk: Slight, often fleeting upturning of the corners of the mouth, completely voluntary and controllable

I like your list, because not only does it tell you how a character displays the action, but it ties the character's actions to the responses of other characters, so authors using the list are less likely to abuse the attributions.

LOL... ANOTHER thing that I find annoying is when the writer has several characters that have the same and/or very similar names.

Similar issue- the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.
5 characters aren't a lot, but if there ends up being 15 names used for those 5 it's somewhat ridiculous (and difficult to follow).

Similar issue- the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.
5 characters aren't a lot, but if there ends up being 15 names used for those 5 it's somewhat ridiculous (and difficult to follow).

Thing is, that can happen in real life. My father's first name was Charles. His family took to calling him by his middle name, and when he joined the Army, the called him Red for his hair color. One man, three names.

the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.

Common in real life. Some people know a person by one nickname, and others know them by another nickname - depending on where they first met. Most people call people by the name they were first introduced to some one by, so you get that.

Related to that is the use of short name forms. My family always called me Ernest, those who knew me from school always called me Ernie, those who knew me from work called me Ern, and I also picked up the nickname of 'Deadly Ernest' which also got shortened to 'Deadly' along the way.

I know someone named Gary James who gets Gary, Gazza, GJ, Rev, Skipper, and Skip from different people due to where they first met him - there's 6 to play with.

Similar issue- the character has a name, then they have a nick name, then they have another nick name used by another character.

In one of my works in progress I have a character whose name and nickname are based on someone I know. The character is named after his grandfather and the legal name is Randolph Leyland Taylor - Leyland is pronounced lay-land by some people and lee-land by others. Mother not wanting him called Randy for short starts him out with the nickname of Lee as the short form of his middle name. Due to activities as a youth he also picks up the nickname of Tinker thus he gets called Lee or Tinker by people and the official records call him Randolph.

Which all goes to show, you really can't make it a rule that no author can ever use more than one name to refer to someone, but just like using first and last names in informal and formal settings, you've got to work extra hard to remind readers of each name, who knows him by those names, and when it's appropriate to use them. The sheer workload in keeping all of that straight, and keeping the reader appraised as the story progresses, should discourage most authors from even attempting it.

It's not that it can't be done, but the more complicated you make an otherwise simple thing, the more difficult it gets to implement. And it's yet another reason why many authors keep active character lists, so they can keep their character names straight, and hopefully notice when one character uses another character's first name as their middle name, and yet another uses it as their last.

I have a dozen different nicknames on my workplace alone.
At work: From best friends, friends, normal colleagues, supervisors and even the big boss lady. All different.
In my hometown, when I was a kid, the adults just called me my fathers nickname with the addition of "junior"
I had a different nickname in the army.
Strangely enough, no nickname in school.

I had one story, with well over 100 characters, where I had some fun with this. Finding another character with the same name, the MC dubs him "Alex 2". I had fun playing around with this (ex: "which Alex is that?"/"Oh, Alex 1").

I have this in real life! One of my friends shares a name with one of my sons. They became 'Josh 1' and 'Josh 2'. And that's how we refer to them.

My niece has 2 uncles with the same name (her only uncles). Me, and the brother of my brother-in-law.
Fortunately, he is called by his nickname by everyone else, even his parents. So she calls him Uncle [nickname].

I have this in real life! One of my friends shares a name with one of my sons. They became 'Josh 1' and 'Josh 2'. And that's how we refer to them.

In one sci-fi novel, I used 'Thing 1' and 'Thing 2' from Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. It's a quick lighthearted way to dance around having to name creatures who are hard enough to describe in English.

My family always uses themes in selecting family names (first names for family members). One family named everyone for nature (ex: Brook, Dale), another for flowers (ex: Rose, Heather, Iris), and so on. My parents with "V"s. Us kids were Vincent, Victor, Valerie and Copy (my grandmother's nickname for Vernon III). My parents were Vernon Jr. and Vera, and my grandparents were Vernon I and Gook (short, sorta, for Gladys). We also lived in Virginia Beach, Virginia, drove a Volkswagen bus and had a dog named VIP (for Very Important Puppy). Although they've always denied consciously choosing all V names, they conceded they were forced to stop having kids when faced with naming the next boy either Vaughn or Virgil.

To top it off, My sister met someone she who attended her high school at their 30th reunion with the name of Vincent Vita, and as you can imagine, they ended up marrying, so now I'm Vincent and her husband is simply Vince.

I'm sure most of you have heard of the author cmsix, well, he uses that nickname because when he was born there were already 5 others in his close family with the exact same first, second, and family name - thus he was the sixth with the same first and second name with the initials of cm.

I do some genealogy research and have found many cases where the first born son of every son in a family is given the same name. Thus you can get John B has four sons and they have four sons who then have four sons. so if he lives long enough to see his great grandsons you have in those 4 generations from John B a one John B in the 2 nd generation, but 4 John Bs in the 3rd Generation and 16 John Bs in the 4th generation giving 22 with the same name at the family Christmas party.

Thing is, that can happen in real life. My father's first name was Charles. His family took to calling him by his middle name, and when he joined the Army, the called him Red for his hair color. One man, three names.

My grandfather picked up the name "Sam" during WW1 due to being the local postal worker(and only federal employee) in town. It stuck with him for the next 70 years, and still persisted after his death), even though it never appeared on any government records.

He had friends and co-workers who never knew that his legal name wasn't actually Sam.

Know someone whose wife has a younger brother and sister that are married to each other.

Yes, brother and sister are married. Legally. They even have kids.

It sounds so strange, but it's not their fault...

Girl (A) and Boy (B) fall in love and get married. At the wedding they make the mistake(?) of introducing her widowed father to his single mother. A year later the happy couple become step-siblings when their parents get married to each other. I assume much yelling was involved, but I've never actually met any of them.

One of my best friends growing up in Brazil had the same first name as his father and two younger brothers. Depending on the situation they were either called by the first and middle names, just the middle name, or in the case of the father what would translate as "big ...".

"Dan" is easy to type. When I started writing, I did three stories with 'Dan' as the main character, then something popped in my brain and I brought stories together into my Smart Girls universe. Everybody calls the Dan 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 in the stories.

It seems to work, and it's a quirk that occasionally gets discussed in the stories.

Girl (A) and Boy (B) fall in love and get married. At the wedding they make the mistake(?) of introducing her widowed father to his single mother. A year later the happy couple become step-siblings when their parents get married to each other. I assume much yelling was involved, but I've never actually met any of them.

Just think of the confusion if the parents in question had another child (C) :). Girl (A) and Boy (B) would both be half siblings to Child (C).

Actually, I know someone who's had that happen. The two children were both in their early 20's, parents had both married young (or at least had kids early), so the mom was only in her late 30's. The first generations kid was in my grade at school, the parents kid was two years behind me. It was funny because Vic (in my grade) would call Jeff (two years younger) his uncle - which was correct. Jeff would get a kick out of saying, this is my brother and my sister, his wife.

Know someone whose wife has a younger brother and sister that are married to each other

One diverging branch off of my family tree in the late 19th Century had a Father, son, and daughter all married into the same group of siblings. The opposite side of the family tree also has (19th Century) examples of a parent's second marriage happening to coincide with a sibling of the 2nd spouse marrying a child of the remaining parent. (It also doesn't help in one case, where 1st wife and 2nd wife(after the first died) both had the same first name)

Can't even claim it's a local anomaly either, as they lived over 1,000 miles away from each other and I am the closest known relation to both groups.

George Jr.
George III ("Monk")
George IV ("Big Wheel")
George V ("Red")
George VI ("Little Joey").

Technically, the positional titles (Jr., IIIrd, IVth) aren't to relate sequential order, but generational order. Thus if you have five children all named George, the first would be George Jr, but the rest would all simply be "George", with no distinctions. George Jr's son would be George III, but that name couldn't be applied to any other of the many George Children. Thus if "Monk" had a child named "George", he'd only be George Jr, not George IV or George VII.

But then, George simply named his kids whatever he wanted, with little regard for how they'd deal with the name, the implications or the appropriateness of the titles.

George simply named his kids whatever he wanted, with little regard for how they'd deal with the name, the implications or the appropriateness of the titles.

On his website, Foreman explains, "I named all my sons George Edward Foreman so they would always have something in common. I say to them, 'If one of us goes up, then we all go up together, and if one goes down, we all go down together!'"

In my first novel, I have a character named Rocco. Most people called him Rock while some Sarge, etc. Those were nicknames/titles people called him in dialogue. But when Rocco spoke and needed a dialogue tag, it was always "Rocco said."

In my first novel, I have a character named Rocco. Most people called him Rock while some Sarge, etc. Those were nicknames/titles people called him in dialogue. But when Rocco spoke and needed a dialogue tag, it was always "Rocco said."

If everyone has their own name for the character, then clearly, the narrator does too.

Also not uncommon was Brothers A and B marrying Sisters(from another family) C and D.

Describes two of my aunts and their husbands. The resulting offspring (2 each) were Double First Cousins. When one of the husbands died after two children, and aunt remarried and had more children, the children of the second marriage were half-siblings to children of the first marriage. Under the law in that state, the double first cousins were more closely related than were the half siblings.

So what are the alternate words to use instead of "chuckling" or "giggling"? "Laughing" doesn't quite have the same connotation.

It's not that "giggled" or "chuckled" (or, for that matter, "laughed") are intrinsically bad words to use. It's that they need to be used sparingly. It's far too easy to overuse them and have your characters come off as ditzy airheads. (Especially if the stuff you have them giggling is not as funny as you think it is.) Most of the time, dialogue tags should just be "said". Or nothing at all.

There are a number of well-known authors, Stephen King for one, who are adamant that 'said' is the only dialogue tag authors should use.
I'd be like you (if I agreed with that principle) and ask why 'asked' and 'replied/answered', at least, should not used be too.

Something else that drives me crazy in a story is when the author goes:

I already used the words "dick", "penis", "pole", "rod", "cock", and "shaft", so this time I'll use "member". After all, I don't want to seem unimaginative!

I get it, you don't want to use the same word over and over in your story... but wording is naturally consistent. The MC isn't going to think a different word every time she looks at a penis. He/She will use at most two or three.

On the same note, use the appropriate words for the character. If he/she doesn't use cuss words in their thoughts/speech normally, then he/she should think "penis" not "dick". Obviously this isn't a hard rule, but it's something to remember. Ignoring it should be a choice, not an accident.

It's not that "giggled" or "chuckled" (or, for that matter, "laughed") are intrinsically bad words to use. It's that they need to be used sparingly. It's far too easy to overuse them and have your characters come off as ditzy airheads. (Especially if the stuff you have them giggling is not as funny as you think it is.) Most of the time, dialogue tags should just be "said". Or nothing at all.

It's especially important to be realistic with your choice of attributions. It's virtually impossible to 'laugh' while speaking. You can giggle, lightly, but it extends the time needed to convey simple concepts. Chuckling works, short of, because like giggles, they tend to be short, lasting only as long a few short words. But again, if two people are constantly laughing, you've gotta question whether they're high on something, or just insecure simpletons.

Certain authors always jump all over me with both feet whether I assert this, but evidence (largely anecdotal, but based on a large number of successful authors) demonstrates that while readers recognize "said" attributions, it doesn't stop them in their tracks the way that other attributions do (mainly because the reader has to parse what the hell the action has to do with the dialogue). Thus 'said' is largely invisible to readers. Thus it's fine to use other attributions, but limit how often you use them, and think before blindly throwing them into dialogue.

For what it's worth, many of us prefer 'action attributions', where you stop the dialogue to show the speaker doing something, rather than using 'he said'. This not only helps pace the dialogue, and gives readers a sense of what's happening amongst the speakers, but it's also a nice change of pace from the constant barrage of 'he said'/'she said'/'he guffawed'/'she giggled'.

There are a number of well-known authors, Stephen King for one, who are adamant that 'said' is the only dialogue tag authors should use.
I'd be like you (if I agreed with that principle) and ask why 'asked' and 'replied/answered', at least, should not used be too.

I'll qualify that. I personally have no problem with "he asked", but I do when it's used repeatedly (say during an interview, or an interrogation). While 'said' is largely ignored, the same isn't true for 'asked', so you've got to watch how often you use it. Like most things, it's enough to only use it every now and then, instead of each time someone asks a question, as you're only reminding readers that a specific person is asking the question. However, interspersing the occasional 'he asked' with plenty of 'he said's will make your story much easier to read.

There are a number of well-known authors, Stephen King for one, who are adamant that 'said' is the only dialogue tag authors should use.

Like so many things, it's purely a matter of personal preferences. If I read "he said" more than three times within the same dialogue, I'm more than just a little annoyed, and if it's a story heavy on dialogues, I'll probably drop it.

However, interspersing the occasional 'he asked' with plenty of 'he said's will make your story much easier to read.

I presume your main point here is that perhaps no more than one-third of paragraphs in a two-person exchange of dialogue need attributions at all, just enough to remind readers which side of the ping-pong table the ball is on. I agree with that and that a smattering of 'asked' in amongst mostly 'said' should not then burden readers.

I didn't say "always". I'm not taking Steven King's position here. I didn't even say you shouldn't use "giggled", just that you should use it sparingly, and with awareness of what it does to the tone of the dialogue.

Think of dialogue tags like spices. They flavor the entire conversation, adding a little bit can go a long way, and you want to be especially careful about how much of the really strongly-flavored ones you put in. "Said" is a very bland one. "Asked" and "replied" are a little more strongly flavored. "Giggled" is a pretty intense one. You can put in a lot of "said" before people start going, "Hey, this conversation tastes like 'said'," but you need be more cautious with "giggled".

And even "said" can be overused. If you've got a back-and-forth between two characters, you don't need to tag every line, and it does start to get obtrusive when you do. An occasional action-attribution to remind people whose turn it is is plenty. If you're good at character voice, you may not need to tag it at all, though I prefer not to rely on that.

And in particular, tags like "giggled", "chuckled", "laughed", and so on are like the laugh track on a sitcom. If it's actually funny, you don't need it; your audience will fill in the laughter themselves. If it isn't, all it does is point up that you think you're being funny when you're not.

I can see the principle that 'said' should usually be preferred because it's "invisible" to readers, but I'm not so sure that seeking invisibility is always best. Does it depend on the story and/or the situation within a story?

My gut feeling is that it is usually best when the intention is to drive the plot of the story, and that's probably most authors most of the time. But ... I cannot get my head around any blanket prohibitions on using alternatives. I wonder whether for some authors some of the time those would be desirable to help develop characters.

Logic and sense has nothing to do with habits from early training. I try to write as i would talk and if I'm recounting and event to another I'd say something like '... then George asked Fred ...' and not use the word 'said' in that situation.

I also find when you have a group together and one asks a question by using 'replied' you make it clear they're answering the question, while following with another speaker using 'said' could mean they're saying something different and it isn't a reply to the question.

Mind you, when you write in the present tense the use of the word 'said' isn't at all common, but 'say' is.

I very rarely edit my forum posts or check them after typing them - thus I often have typos, the most common being teh for the, sue for use, nad for and, ti for to, and often have letters missing due to not hitting the keys hard enough.

Funny you should ask that. The first line of my new novel (as of now) is:

The boy sat on the ground behind Cactus Point High School, leaning against the dumpster with knees raised.

I had to remove the "the" I had before "Cactus Point High School." When I first wrote the sentence is was simply "the high school." When I named the school I forgot to remove the "the" until reading it.

I presume your main point here is that perhaps no more than one-third of paragraphs in a two-person exchange of dialogue need attributions at all, just enough to remind readers which side of the ping-pong table the ball is on. I agree with that and that a smattering of 'asked' in amongst mostly 'said' should not then burden readers.

That is what I intended, but more specifically, I'd probably go with a 30%/70% "asked"/"said" attribution for questions, just enough so readers understand that they're looking for answers, but not so much that the 'asked' becomes repetitious. Of course, if they only ask one questions, then ask away, but in most cases, "said" is a more reliable choice than the alternatives.

I can see the principle that 'said' should usually be preferred because it's "invisible" to readers, but I'm not so sure that seeking invisibility is always best. Does it depend on the story and/or the situation within a story?

These guidelines are often stated as definitive rules, but they're not. The key is, don't get lazy and watch how often you do things by rote. Although "said", like vanilla, is pretty mild, it will become obnoxious if used repeatedly. However "chortled" becomes wearisome after only the second use, and "giggled" after the third in a LONG chapter.

But for all that I preach about using "said", I actually use quite a variety of attributions (I should look up the percentages of each in a typical dialogue just for giggles (but not during discussions)).

If you have a two person point/counterpoint dialogue, then you don't need many attributions, just an occasional one to remind readers who's speaking at the given time. If you have more than two, the same applies as long as its point/counterpoint by two, but whenever you introduce a third, identify who it is. But even then, there's such a thing as using too many attributions, especially for a extensive dialogues, which is why the action attribution comes in handy, as it breaks up the monotony, but more importantly, it slows the reader down, giving them a chance to absorb what's been said before they start arguing once again.

Muscle memory often damns us all. Ernest has a history of type "hte" for "the" and "sue" for "use", but most of us have gotten used to it, and it's easily enough cleaned up during editing. Here on the Forum, we're not quite as formal about the proper spelling as we are in print.

Ernest: "If I was used every time I mistype "sue", then nothing much would change."

For what it's worth, many of us prefer 'action attributions', where you stop the dialogue to show the speaker doing something, rather than using 'he said'.

Could you please provide an example?

I wanted to get a real-world example, rather than making one up on the fly and then having people attack it. Here's one from my next story:

"That's why I'm glad to be starting fresh."

"There were just too many bad memories there." Al leaned over, taking Myi's hand and lifting it to his lips and kissing it. "Though they were mixed with happy adventures, trusted friendships and decent people I'll never let go, as long as we live."

This segment follows a long discussion between various people, but here, after Myi points out how stressful events have been, Al pauses (the benefits of using actions instead of speech) and comforts his wife. That's an 'action attribution', since the attribution consists of an action in a separate sentence, rather than merely a noun and a verb standard attribution.

I had to remove the "the" I had before "Cactus Point High School." When I first wrote the sentence is was simply "the high school." When I named the school I forgot to remove the "the" until reading it.

Another thing that authors do that annoys me (including myself) is authors who use "the the".

Isn't that what always happens to long threads on this forum? The train of thought gets completely derailed and we delve in the minutia? Especially considering that with this being a global forum, we're never going to agree on anything?

(Other than Ross is annoying, as CW mentions?)

These guidelines are often stated as definitive rules, but they're not

Yes, a change. In your example, "said" is the dialogue tag. The other stuff is what she's doing while talking.

What you believe is you can merge "she said, giggling" into "she giggled." You've replaced the tag "said" with the tag "giggled" assuming the reader converts it to "said, giggling." I actually believe the reader would do that (speaking while giggling), but why do it that way?

You're changing what a dialogue tag is. All the dialogue tag is is to identify who is speaking.

This assumes it's meant as a dialogue tag.
In this situation – he is tickling her – there is no dialogue tag necessary to identify who said "Don't tickle me!"; 'she giggled' may be just a description of her reaction to his tickling.

It's UK English, as used in the names of many pubs:
The George & Dragon; The George and Dragon.

I read a book with "the George" in its title (can't remember the full title).
In this book "The George" is used as a synonym for "dragonfighter".

Your example has an implied "Pub" or "Inn" after the name (i.e. The George Pub") which is obvious through the context. What I was referring to was simply "the" before a name without an implied addition after the name. I learned UK English and from that I think the prefix is wrong or at least it sounds wrong. Ernest confirmed that. I am referring to the occurrence in stories, not in forum posts where typos are trivial.

I learned UK English and from that I think the prefix is wrong or at least it sounds wrong. Ernest confirmed that. I am referring to the occurrence in stories, not in forum posts where typos are trivial.

I was taught that the use of the word 'the' in a name is for titles of some sort as in The President of the USA, or the name of something like The USS Enterprise, and it's not part of a person's name. However, there are the odd times when what is a person's name is actually a title.

Many people call a low level runner a 'Gopher' as in 'go for this or go for that'. In some organizations the lowest level runner of errands is called George and referred to as The George - in this context it is not a name but it's a title. However, this is a very rare type of situation and I doubt it's what Keet is listing as a problem.

In a related way I've noted a number of US authors who use the word that when they should use than and the same ones often use than when they should be using that. The times I've seen it done it's obviously intended as the misuse is consistent through the story. I do wonder if it's a result of a specific education program in one part of the USA, but I don't have enough of a sample to make any clear judgement on it.

I was taught that the use of the word 'the' in a name is for titles of some sort as in The President of the USA, or the name of something like The USS Enterprise, and it's not part of a person's name. However, there are the odd times when what is a person's name is actually a title.

Thank you for that explanation. That's how I learned it. I also noticed the than-then-that errors in several stories (not yours as far as I remember) but those are to me obvious misspellings where the "the name" puzzled me.

The dialogue tag argument has been grumbling along for decades, I remember it from the 1970's and it was not new then. It's even been named, after a (possibly apocryphal) book of alternatives to 'said': said-bookism. There are lots of articles about it onthe 'net.

These guidelines are often stated as definitive rules, but they're not.

Perhaps those who state 'only use said' as a definitive rule consider that part of "showing"? Do they actually mean they prefer to show an action in circumstances where others would tell with an alternative to said?

but those are to me obvious misspellings where the "the name" puzzled me.

I don't think it's all that puzzling, at least not in stories recent enough to have been written using a word processor.

The most likely explanation is that the story was originally written using a title or description "the man in blue", but the author gave the character a name (I'll use Fred) late in the story then did a global search and replace of "man in blue" with Fred. Then the author forgot to go back and look for cases of "the Fred".

I admit I'm in a minority here so I can't criticise suthors who write 'said, giggling', but I think 'giggled' is more evocative. IMO, although not of the same ilk as a fight scene, 'giggling' is an action and by default benefits from succinctness of verbiage ;)

Just to confuse you, there are a few instances where native English speakers would use 'the'. For example, the Ukraine, the Congo. I recently read an article by a 'writing expert' expressing the opinion that usage is wrong and should be dropped.

And in particular, tags like "giggled", "chuckled", "laughed", and so on are like the laugh track on a sitcom. If it's actually funny, you don't need it; your audience will fill in the laughter themselves. If it isn't, all it does is point up that you think you're being funny when you're not.

What you believe is you can merge "she said, giggling" into "she giggled." You've replaced the tag "said" with the tag "giggled" assuming the reader converts it to "said, giggling." I actually believe the reader would do that (speaking while giggling), but why do it that way?

The thing about this example in particular is it also provides a chance for character exposition. Some people will loudly bellow and potentially become violent even. (Even the women) Others will quietly protest what is going on.

While another might be so under the thrall of the involuntary laughter/squirm response to be unable to gather enough air to achieve much, so their protest may be more of a gasping type response "between giggles."

That being said, the "bog standard" of "said" should be the one normally getting used even if it gets a bit repetitive, in this case, reaching for the thesaurus can be a bad thing.

I agree that the "bog standard" 'said' is usually best.

My point was that I'm inclined to distinguish between statements, questions, and replies to questions. For me, the bog-standard attribution for questions is 'asked' and for answers is 'replied'.

I wouldn't use them with every question and reply. Firstly, readers don't need the speaker named in every paragraph with dialogue to keep track of who is currently speaking, and secondly, some paragraphs can name the speaker as performing an action instead in an attribution.

Just to confuse you, there are a few instances where native English speakers would use 'the'. For example, the Ukraine, the Congo. I recently read an article by a 'writing expert' expressing the opinion that usage is wrong and should be dropped.

It is an informal use, so good luck killing it. And to build on its use as a title, this illustrates one such form of it. "The Congo" is called such because there is only one. In that sense it is a variant of somebody talking about "The President" where the speaker assumes it is understood by others present as to which President the speaker is talking about.

Ditto for "the house," "the school," "the city," "the church" and "the(/that) bastard" among others.

For example, the Ukraine, the Congo. I recently read an article by a 'writing expert' expressing the opinion that usage is wrong and should be dropped.

Doesn't that technically depend on the literal meaning in the original language? How many readers would know that for 'Ukraine' and 'Congo'? I wouldn't be bothered if the 'the' was dropped for those two.

I looked up 'Ukraine' at dictionary.com. Interestingly, every 'contemporary example' they provided did not have 'the' while every 'historical example' did.

Did this "expert" express an opinion on The Hague and the Netherlands? I'd always use 'The/the' with both of those.

I would regard that kind of use of 'the' as technically correct when the naming word is actually an adjective. But then, how many readers would know that 'Ukraine' and 'Congo' are adjectives in their original language.

In some of those cases, it probably is more that the writer was aware of it, and took steps accordingly. At least at some point in the chain, others probably just did "monkey see, monkey do" for whatever their respective reasons were. Although that would explain why only certain specific locations also tend to be associated with "the" while others are not. For example someone talking about "the France" would get funny looks all around while "the Congo" wouldn't phase more than a few.

I looked up 'Ukraine' at dictionary.com. Interestingly, every 'contemporary example' they provided did not have 'the' while every 'historical example' did.

The Ukraine used to refer to a vast area, transcending current national boundaries and encompassing much of what nowadays is Russia. That a small piece of it has been formalised into a country, called Ukraine, adds to the confusion.

Did this "expert" express an opinion on The Hague and the Netherlands? I'd always use 'The/the' with both of those.

In an earlier thread, the general consensus was to eliminate unnecessary words. That discussion would support using 'she giggled' instead of 'she exclaimed between giggles'

If the words are needed in order to communicate information not otherwise present, then those words cease to be "unnecessary" in nature. Unless of course the extra details themselves are not desired. So it then becomes an author discretion call on if the information is relevant in some way.

Yes, a change. In your example, "said" is the dialogue tag. The other stuff is what she's doing while talking.

What you believe is you can merge "she said, giggling" into "she giggled." You've replaced the tag "said" with the tag "giggled" assuming the reader converts it to "said, giggling." I actually believe the reader would do that (speaking while giggling), but why do it that way?

The main difference between dialogue tags (attributions) and action attributions is the element of time. In your example, the added commas help, since they add a small time lag between Mrs. Blakely saying "it's time for tea" and her putting the kettle on (or between saying something then then giggling about it).

However, you have a more significant time delay by posting the action in a separate sentence, thus the action stops, and narrator describes what the characters are doing, which allows the reader to pause, absorb what's been said, before the back-and-forth rapid fire discussions resume. That's why the action attributions are often a welcome relief from the constant dialogue tags, because they provide a break from unending dialogue. As such, I'd even suggest authors specifically use them after each significant point, so readers have the proper time to consider the points raised, rather then rushing on and potentially losing them in the other unimportant details being discussed.

Perhaps those who state 'only use said' as a definitive rule consider that part of "showing"? Do they actually mean they prefer to show an action in circumstances where others would tell with an alternative to said?

Having the narrator say "said" is in no way showing by anyone's accounting. You show by letting someone's actions or display of emotions what's not explicitly stated. In my earlier example, the 'action attribute' (where Al comforts his spouse) is showing their close affection for one another in a way that "Al said, comforting his spouse" wouldn't.

"The Fred in Blue". I like it. I can picture an entire series of children's stories all about the continuing adventures of "The Fred in Blue". Now when it gets reduced to "The the in blue" is when you completely lose it!

There is a minor precedent for "the/The" before a name, but that is reserved for when the name itself is being used as though it were a title in its own right.

I had an extensive discussion with my editors of an AI who only identifies itself as "The One". Does that mean, subsequently, that its official name is "The One", "the One" or merely "One"? We still haven't successfully resolved the issue, even many years after the first book's release.

Word choice is usually affected by the setting. The word you would use when out drinking in a bar would probably be considered inappropriate in a church setting.

You're right. In a bar, you'd typically say "the ... the bitch!" whereas in a church setting, your drop the unnecessary "the"s, leaving it merely as "that bitch". 'D That accounts for the many recitations of the basic 'that demon rum' sermon by ministers and pastors.

In an earlier thread, the general consensus was to eliminate unnecessary words. That discussion would support using 'she giggled' instead of 'she exclaimed between giggles'

Sorry, but the earlier discussion was about dropping specific unnecessary words (either passive, repetitive or words like "that" which don't add anything to a given sentence), but reducing an entire description of a woman giggling between sentences is just ... criminal for an author to commit.

In the first, the passages become easier to read, as the 'passive phrases' have been removed (which only weaken the sentence), while in the second, the entire context of the giggling is lost.

Having the narrator say "said" is in no way showing by anyone's accounting. You show by letting someone's actions or display of emotions what's not explicitly stated. In my earlier example, the 'action attribute' (where Al comforts his spouse) is showing their close affection for one another in a way that "Al said, comforting his spouse" wouldn't.

Would you answer my point again, please? Either my intended point was unclear or you missed its meaning.

I was not suggesting 'said' is showing. I was more asking if alternatives to it are telling. If so, an author would avoid telling by using 'said' when they have nothing to show, and an action verb when they do have something to show.

Just to confuse you, there are a few instances where native English speakers would use 'the'. For example, the Ukraine, the Congo. I recently read an article by a 'writing expert' expressing the opinion that usage is wrong and should be dropped.

I had an extensive discussion with my editors of an AI who only identifies itself as "The One". Does that mean, subsequently, that its official name is "The One", "the One" or merely "One"?

'The' is usually lower case but it depends on the who/whatever coined the name, or the literal meaning of what became a name a by common usage.

For example, both the Ukraine and the Netherlands both meant roughly the outer edges. That's not specific enough for a capitalised 'The' to become part of the name. But The Hague was originally a very specific area enclosed by a hedge.

Did this "expert" express an opinion on The Hague and the Netherlands? I'd always use 'The/the' with both of those.

"The Hague" is the English form of "Den Haag" which is a name in itself (including the "The"). The same for (Kingdom of) the Netherlands which is the English form of (Koninkrijk) der Nederlanden. Without the prefix "Kingdom of" it should be a capitalized "The". I'm from The Netherlands and there is no Dutch form of "The Netherlands" except the single form of "Nederland", which would translate to "The Netherlands".
In short, for these two examples "The" is an inextricable part of the name, not an incorrect used prefix which I was referring to in my initial question.

That's not specific enough for a capitalised 'The' to become part of the name. But The Hague was originally a very specific area enclosed by a hedge.

You are partially right. In a sentence it can be "the Netherlands" but if listed as a name it should be "The Netherlands" or simply "Netherlands". It's a bit of a historical "problem" since it started with the country being a collection of areas: "the netherlands". That changed a lot over the years. Once formalized it became the country "Nederland". So all 3 forms can be correct. I think the never used but probably most correct form should be "Netherland" (no s) since in Dutch is also the single form "Nederland", but that's just my opinion.

One entertaining (to me) finding of my years in Germany was finding out that it was die Fraulein, neuter, when sitting on a park bench in the summer observing passers-by clearly indicated that such was NOT the case.

I was not suggesting 'said' is showing. I was more asking if alternatives to it are telling. If so, an author would avoid telling by using 'said' when they have nothing to show, and an action verb when they do have something to show.

Oops! Sorry. Yeah, I'd agree with that then. "Said" is pretty much the ultimate in telling, as you're TELLING the reader who is speaking. In most instances, the reader can figure out who's speaking easily enough, only only needs a simple reminder (in a two-person dialogue) every now and then.

I've noticed more and more the 'the' being dropped, with journos writing only 'Netherlands'.

I don't usually read foreign journos so I wouldn't know, but it's a start. Now if they would also drop the last s too it would be perfect. After all it's "Nederland" in Dutch so "Netherland" in English is fine.

Funny thing: A literal translation would be Lowlands because the "neder" part means low. We do have a very big yearly open-air music festival called Lowlands though.

I admit I'm in a minority here so I can't criticise suthors who write 'said, giggling', but I think 'giggled' is more evocative. IMO, although not of the same ilk as a fight scene, 'giggling' is an action and by default benefits from succinctness of verbiage ;)

I agree with what you say here. However, some words inherently exhibit vocal aspects of speech and some don't. Thus I now tend to have things like 'Fred shouted - Fred whispered - Fred replied' and others where the word clearly indicates an understandable spoken response. I also use other words like giggling etc. as an additional description, thus I'll write something like 'Mary giggled, and said, ...' or 'Mary giggled while saying ...' because some words don't immediately indicate clearly understandable spoken words but they're needed to paint a better picture of the scene or person's actions.

edit to add: I will also sometimes have a reply / response that is physical and not verbal such as - George responded by giving Harry 'the bird.' - Mary giggled in reply, and walked away. - George chuckled in response as he turned and walked away. and similar type actions.

The AI wasn't that egotistical. When asked who he was, it simply replied "I am the one who brought you all here", so the humans simply accepted that his 'name' was "the One", and have referring to him as such ever since. But back when I first started on book 2, I had to reread the passage multiple times figure out whether to use an upper or lower case "the".

Further complicating matters, the crew at large refers to the AI as "the One", while the Captain of the ship treats him as just a member of the crew, calling him "One" (showing they have a more personal relationship than the other crew members).

The bigger problem is, in book 3, more of the crew follow their captain's lead in dropping the "The", but with so many characters, it's hard to recall who's using the formal name ("the") and who's using the informal (just plain "One").

Oh, the many travails we lay before our feet and then decry the insurmountable obstructions! 'D

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London.

"Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country," she says. "This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution."

The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine.

There is no definite article in the Ukrainian or Russian languages and there is another theory why it crept into the English language.

Those who called it "the Ukraine" in English must have known that the word meant "borderland", says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as "the borderland".

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians probably decided that the article denigrated their country [by identifying it as a part of Russia] and abolished 'the' while speaking English, so now it is simply Ukraine.

"That's why the Ukraine suddenly lost its article in the last 20 years, it's a sort of linguistic independence in Europe, it's hugely symbolic."

The Germans still use it but the English-speaking world has largely stopped using it.

There are many other country names that are habitually referred to with "the", such as Congo, Gambia, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Netherlands, Philippines and Bahamas.

But according to several authoritative sources, such as the CIA World Factbook, the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World and the US Department of State, only two countries, The Bahamas and The Gambia, should officially be referred to with the article.

The two Congos are officially Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo. And the longer, official name for Netherlands is Kingdom of the Netherlands.

One thing that I find not only annoying, but sometimes leads to confusion with the reading is when an author places an adverb after the verb. The sad thing is I've seen this done in a few different stories by different authors, so I'm not sure if there's a deeper root cause for it or only lazy writing by adding the adverb as an after thought.

Part of the discussion on using the word the in relation to places like Ukraine runs into the differences between a name of a country and the name of a region. Some names are both and the only way to differentiate between the country and the region is to use the before it, but not everyone gets the usage right.

I live in an area known as the Riverina as it's a region designation. Within the region is a city called Wagga Wagga and another called Albury, yet there is an expanded area around both known, respectively, as the Wagga Wagga area and the Albury area which includes a few smaller townships near them. The same applies to many other places in the world.

You are assuming that the name 'Netherlands' in English is a translation of the Dutch name 'Nederlands'.

Isn't it? It seems to me all countries name themselves and other civilized countries use that name, a close translation or a previous historical name (Germany anyone?). You don't make up a name for another country.

It may be different in Dutch, but in English the singular 'land' suggests one, well-defined border, while the plural 'lands' would be used if the border is undefined, as in low lands.

Thus since the Netherlands has a very well defined border it should be Netherland. Thank you for another argument in favor of my personal, although unofficial, favorite name Netherland.

The words 'nether' and 'land' have existed in English since the tenth century with their current meaning. If describing an area of low land it is natural to say 'the nether lands' rather than 'nether land'. When English grammar for creating names is applied to the translation of your country's name the result is 'the Netherlands'.

Thanks, Switch, for that informative post. Though, I've never referred to Gambia with a definitive article, and I can't recall ever hearing it referred that way either in print articles or on the news, so that last tidbit is completely new to me. I'm wondering whether it (the definitive use for Gambia) is a dated reference in those individual documents, or everyone in America has been using it incorrectly my entire life (or at least as long as Gambia has been a country)?

Thus since the Netherlands has a very well defined border it should be Netherland. Thank you for another argument in favor of my personal, although unofficial, favorite name Netherland.

You've convinced me too. Goodbye "the Netherlands", you were good to me, but our time is past. Hello "Netherland", it looks like we'll have a much friendlier time of it. (Now if I can only convince my readers of my unorthodox usage.) My spellcheck program hates it!

The words 'nether' and 'land' have existed in English since the tenth century with their current meaning. If describing an area of low land it is natural to say 'the nether lands' rather than 'nether land'. When English grammar for creating names is applied to the translation of your country's name the result is 'the Netherlands'.

So you decide we (all English speaking countries) should always translate the name, and then individually reconstruct the name based upon their English equivalents, rather than simply accepting a foreign countries own word for their country? (Frankly, I've never understood why we continue to refer to Deutschland as "Germany". It's use seems pointlessly archaic.)

I suspect the Netherlands ended up as a bit of an anomaly because 'nether' and 'land' were pre-existing words in English.

And British imperialists were incredibly insensitive to names of places used by those in other countries. How the heck did they come up with names such as Peking, Bombay, Madras, Munich, Germany, ...? They were a world power - then - so what others thought was irrelevant.

Maybe after Brexit the Deutschlanders should exact some revenge and start calling the capital of Little Britain 'Long Gone'.

What's confusing about it? Are you still hung up on your personal grammar rule that an adverb must come before the verb it modifies?

While I recognize that the process of putting adjectives and adverbs after what they modify is common in some European languages it's not done that way in English - why that came about is not something I've been able to find out. Nor is it a personal grammar rule.

In some languages it's correct to say the house blue and the car fast in English the correct way is to say either the blue house or the house is blue and the fast car or the car is fast.

Take the Swift type comment earlier:

"This knife damn near sliced my finger off!" Tom said sharply.

That makes good English. However, in the examples I see and am complaining about they would have:

Tom said, "This knife damn near sliced my finger off!" sharply.

which is bad English and it causes you to stop a moment to make sense of it.

You've convinced me too. Goodbye "the Netherlands", you were good to me, but our time is past. Hello "Netherland", it looks like we'll have a much friendlier time of it. (Now if I can only convince my readers of my unorthodox usage.) My spellcheck program hates it!

I never said any one else should use Netherland. But I've changed my mind. From now on I just call it... home.

An adverb without a verb is a grammatical mistake and I'm pretty sure no one will object.

Is that true?

The google featured site (dictionary.com?) claims an adverb is "a word or phrase that modifies the meaning of an adjective, verb, or other adverb, expressing manner, place, time, or degree (e.g. gently, here, now, very ). Some adverbs, for example sentence adverbs, can also be used to modify whole sentences."

In your example, 'white' is part of a compound noun, "the house white'. Of course, you could argue 'white' is an adjective and the modified noun 'wine' was omitted. Either way, you merely provided a distraction to argue about something totally unrelated.

I would assess that more harshly. It's not merely 'bad English'; it's flat-out wrong!

So ... the disagreement which robberhands and I have with you is not about what constitutes bad writing; it's with your description of what you consider a problem.

You defined above the problem you sometimes see with this:

One thing that I find not only annoying ... is when an author places an adverb after the verb.

That's precisely what the first example above has: the adverb 'sharply' is placed after the verb 'said'.

The mistake I would identify in the horrid second example above is that the connection between the adverb 'sharply' and the verb it modifies 'said' has been severed by the intervening dialogue.

The problem of severed connections is not limited to verbs being separated from adverbs which modify them. Misplaced commas (and other separators) can also separate nouns from adjectives which modify them, and verbs from their objects. The root cause of such errors often comes from a failure to understand what constitutes the "main clause" in a sentence and what are detours from the main clause (called "parenthetic phrases" and various other names). A common mistake is placing a comma after a verb which indicates the sentence is heading off on a detour but not using the matching comma needed to indicate the end of the detour and the resumption of the main clause.

A smiley wouldn't have saved you. I regard smileys as evil incarnate (that's an example for an adjective following a noun) and just ignore them. Something is funny or it isn't; a smiley doesn't change that.

While I recognize that the process of putting adjectives and adverbs after what they modify is common in some European languages it's not done that way in English - why that came about is not something I've been able to find out. Nor is it a personal grammar rule.

The only semi-authoritative reference I know is the one we discussed in the past, about the 'natural order of adjectives', but again, that reference doesn't precisely state why those words sound more natural, it only states that they do.

Isn't it? It seems to me all countries name themselves and other civilized countries use that name, a close translation or a previous historical name (Germany anyone?). You don't make up a name for another country.

Persia was only called Persia because the Greeks called it such. Iran is closer to what "the natives" called it, but still not quite there.

A smiley wouldn't have saved you. I regard smileys as evil incarnate (that's an example for an adjective following a noun) and just ignore them. Something is funny or it isn't; a smiley doesn't change that.

That is true, but it also addressed minimizing the number of words used to say the same thing.

Personally, I don't care for 'she giggled'. However, I can visualize a difference between 'she exclaimed between giggles' and 'she giggled'. In the first, there would be short sections of understandable passages separated by giggles. In the second, the words and giggles would be so intermixed that it would be difficult to understand the speaker.

"The" issue: I live in the United States of America. If "the" is wrong, why does "I live in United States of America" sound strange? Using USA doesn't help, I would say I live in the USA. Maybe if I lived in Union of South Africa my choice would be different, but it still sounds better to me to use the before the name of the nation.

As a standard usage in the US "The President" always refers to the current occupant of the White House.

Well, then you have the Mormons who have a President as head of their faith. So a Mormon talking about "The/the President" could either be talking about their version of The Pope, or they could be speaking about POTUS. ;)

Further complications come in the form of Educational Institutions as well as Corporations where their organizational head also has the title of "President" and may be referred to by title rather than name. Which isn't to mention all those corporate VP's running around where I am sure protocol would have you "promote" them to President when you're not calling them "Vice President" instead. So some of them can be getting referenced as such in the right context as well. So I guess Mormon's get a real ambiguity prize depending on how they discuss a particular President, they could be discussing any one of 4 or more entirely different people.

Edit: forgot Mormons have Stake Presidents as well(they preside over the bishops who preside over individual congregations), and then each "Mission Area" has a "Mission President" of its own, and I think there are a couple other positions they have which are Presidencies as well(As the Presiding Authority for that matter--so they're literally Presidents). So the count goes even higher for them.

Further complications come in the form of Educational Institutions as well as Corporations where their organizational head also has the title of "President" and may be referred to by title rather than name.

Again convention in the US in such cases is that unless you are speaking within the organization on matters of the organizations work, you would use "the President of...".

Further complications come in the form of Educational Institutions as well as Corporations where their organizational head also has the title of "President" and may be referred to by title rather than name.

Again convention in the US in such cases is that unless you are speaking within the organization on matters of the organizations work, you would use "the President of..."

Formal writing and informal speech are different things. In informal speech, it is more typical (at least "in the Mormon cultural footprint") to get "President (Name)" with no "the" prefacing the title when a name is used, but you CAN still occasionally encounter "the President"(case indeterminate in this case, as we're talking informal speech) in conversation, normally after context has been given, but not always(although for various flavors of president the Mormons have the more extended title such as "the Stake President" or "the Mission President" is slightly more common when referencing by title alone). Ie. They'll name which one they're speaking about at the start and drop to title or name only from there, depending on personal preferences/relationship to said person.

Which leaves openings for others to eavesdrop or join in later without that context being immediately available to them, although subject matter at hand should help more than a little. ;)

Technically, the adverb doesn't modify the sentence, it only modifies the phrase, which just happens to be the only content of the sentence, but it has nothing to do with modifying entire sentences other than a random length of the sentence.

it has nothing to do with modifying entire sentences other than a random length of the sentence.

It's more accurate to say that adverbs can modify entire clauses, rather than sentences, but that is not limited by the length of the clause. For example:

Surprisingly, a large proportion of America's population refuses to believe the fact obvious to all others that the president of their country is a compulsive liar.

That is a sentence with an adverb, 'Surprisingly', modifying a clause consisting of a subject, 'a large proportion of America's population'; a verb, 'refuses'; and a direct object, 'to believe the fact obvious to all others that the president of their country is a compulsive liar'.

Surprisingly, a large proportion of America's population refuses to believe the fact obvious to all others that the president of their country is a compulsive liar.

That is a sentence with an adverb, 'Surprisingly', modifying a clause consisting of a subject, 'a large proportion of America's population'; a verb, 'refuses'; and a direct object, 'to believe the fact obvious to all others that the president of their country is a compulsive liar'.

Unsurprisingly, a plurality of Americans have concluded that the last several Presidents have all been compulsive liars. Some just happen to be more blatant than others.

Not to mention the abundance of both online porn and online dating (cough, cough, hookup) sites.

Nah, that had nothing to do with the deterioration of Amsterdam and specifically the red light district. When I was young it was an adventure just strolling down the streets in the RLD, standing to the back wall in the Banana Bar having no money to participate in the fun. That whole leisurely ambiance is gone now.

Exactly, most politicians choose to lie when it's convenient. However, a certain current nationwide office holder seems incapable of uttering the truth, preferring to invent entire facts on the fly, while decrying the validity of 'truth' as a general concept. Now that's compulsive, when you lie just because you can't resist lying.

All politicians lie, but some are better at it than others. If you can't believe anything someone says, then nothing they say is any more important than "kerfuffle" statements.

I find it terrifying that so many Americans cannot see how different this president's dishonesty is to all those before him.

I think part of it is that his lies are so blatant in most cases that it isn't that they believe them. It's that they don't take him seriously. As such, while they're agreed that "it is a problem" they don't think it is end-of-the-world scale significant either.

In some respects, they probably prefer the blatantly transparent liar over the one that it takes an army of dedicated investigators to catch.

Ie. He's "a villain" you expect to find in a B or C list quality comedy production. So seeing people running around like he's Bram Stoker's Dracula personified is laughable.

You are mistaken. The speaker is talking about his act of 'running down the hill', so the example has 2 verbs.

The point of the example is if a writer places the adverb after the verb the writer wants the adverb to modify, then if text is placed between the adverb and its verb there can be an ambiguity. In this particular case, the reader can interpret 'slowly' to be 'slowly spoke' or 'slowly running'.

I think part of it is that his lies are so blatant in most cases that it isn't that they believe them.

During the 2016 campaign, a TV interviewer asked a man in the parking lot of a Trump convention about whether he believed Trump was a liar. The man's response was, Yes I believe Trump lies, but he wouldn't lie to us his supporters. I think most of Trump's supporters know he lied to them to get elected, but their pride will not allow them to admit it.

Many of Trump's current supporters believe he is doing the proper thing in areas that interest them. They don't care if he is doing improper things in areas that are of little or no interest to them. They don't realize the impact his actions will have on them in the future.

A good example of that is Trump's tariff war. I doubt that most of his supporters understand the negative impact his war will have on their lives is an increase in the cost of the merchandise they will buy.

Trump's tax bill is also a good example of the negative impact his actions have on the general population. It has been presented as being a good thing for big business and the average person will see lower taxes. I think my family falls into the average category. I asked my tax man how Trump's bill will affect my 2018 taxes. He told me that if they were applied to my 2017 taxes, I would have had to pay an additional $800 in taxes. Those of us living in the US need to be prepared for their 2018 taxes being higher than expected.

In this particular case, the reader can interpret 'slowly' to be 'slowly spoke' or 'slowly running'.

No! There's no ambiguity in your example. 'Slowly' modifies the closest object it can potentially modify, which is 'running'.

Robberhands is correct in stating that 'running down the hill slowly' is a 'noun phrase ... the object of your sentence'.

He's also (technically) correct in stating:

there is only one verb in this sentence. That's 'spoke'.

I'll just state this; I've explained this point often enough here already. Within the sentence, 'running' is functioning as the head of a noun phrase. Within that noun phrase, it is functioning as a verb which may be modified by an adverb.

There is an overabundance of a certain religion that takes a dim view at places like the RLD. Amsterdam has become extremely leftist int the last 10-15 years, even this week a new very leftist mayor was selected, straight against the wishes of the majority of the citizens. Well we all know how the left supports uncontrolled immigration, even if a large part is criminal which is a real problem in Amsterdam.

Many of Trump's current supporters believe he is doing the proper thing in areas that interest them. They don't care if he is doing improper things in areas that are of little or no interest to them.

How does that differ from avid supporters of any politician? I remember a quote about a U.S. Senator from Georgia (I think 1940s or 1950s) in which one person said - "He's a crook." ANd the other said, "Yeah, but he's our crook."

How does that differ from avid supporters of any politician? I remember a quote about a U.S. Senator from Georgia (I think 1940s or 1950s) in which one person said - "He's a crook." ANd the other said, "Yeah, but he's our crook."

That reminds me of the longstanding Daley administration in Chicago. Everyone knew he was as crooked as a three-dollar bill, but his patronage system actually accomplished things for great numbers of people (as opposed to the current patronage system, which promises the sun and moon, but only delivers for the rich and powerful funding campaigns, while betraying the voters at every turn). That was back in the days when individual votes actually counted, and politicians could be counted on to pay the working stiff for those votes!